Townhall.com, Where Your Opinion Counts
Talk Radio:   Bill Bennett   Mike Gallagher   Dennis Prager   Michael Medved   Hugh Hewitt   
BREAKING NEWS  LeftArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican   RightArrow - Townhall.com : Conservative, Political, Republican  
Columns, funnies & more in your inbox!
  • Check the boxes and send us your email address to receveive your free newsletter
  • Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
  • Townhall.com’s weekly inside scoop on what’s happening behind the scenes in the world of politics. When news breaks, we report.
  • Signup to receive the latest daily Townhall cartoons
Thursday, February 28, 2008
Dan Gainor :: Townhall.com Columnist
A change in the climate discussion
by Dan Gainor
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
[+] Text [-]
 
Poll
Do you feel the leaked information from a global warming alarmist organization is meaningful?



The network new shows talk endlessly about our changing climate. On March 2-4, a huge group of scientists and public policy experts is gathering in New York for the 2008 International Conference on Climate Change to talk about what the networks leave out. The conference will present a counter to the global warming hysteria so prominent in our society.

Much of what we get on the networks is one big snow job. This year, I mean that literally. In China, they are having epic blizzards. Millions are stranded in train stations because of the snow. Now, any smart person will tell you that there is no connection between an individual weather event and long-term climate change.

Of course any smart person doesn’t necessarily work for the network news. Network stories on cold weather, which goes against the Al Gorean principles of climate change, merit no mention of global warming. Hot weather, however, earns a ridiculous 100-year prediction of disaster from CNN’s Tom Foreman as the network promoted its “Planet in Peril” report.

Sometimes climate change hysteria has its amusing side. The U.S. Senate held its global warming debate on a snowy day in December. NBC actually turned off its studio lights during a Sunday night football broadcast, as if turning off a few bulbs would detract from the millions of people powering their TVs. And last April’s Vanity Fair depicted an afterlife where “environmental sinners” go from global warming to a slightly hotter hereafter. Sort of out of the frying pan, well, you get the idea.

Unsurprisingly, Paradise had Al Gore and a Prius. And while The Washington Post didn’t deify the Jolly Green Giant, it called him "Al Gore, sexy man. The thinking girl's thoroughbred."

According to the December 12 Style section, part of Gore’s Nobel award included worship by a parade of demented pop stars. Scottish singer KT Tunstall gushed over Gore’s “expressive, arched, well-groomed” eyebrows. Actress Uma Thurman, who called him "adorable and sexy," said watching the “Inconvenient Truth” star “following his calling” was “like watching a beautiful racehorse run.”

OK, enough of Al Gore running. Thankfully we were saved from that. But Al Gore flying is another matter. Between climate summits and Nobel Peace Prize ceremonies, Gore jetted from Bali to Stockholm and back.

Not to be outdone, network journalists adopted this strategy of flying around the globe to complain about people damaging the environment.

ABC’s “Good Morning America” gang celebrated their first anniversary together by highlighting how they had flown around the globe to “bring you the day’s most important stories,” said anchor Robin Roberts. That globetrotting included countless segments about everyone doing his or her part to curb the threat of global warming. “I tallied it up and we have circled the globe 12 times, 12 times in one year, 315,688 miles,” Roberts said.

Al Gore’s Climatecrisis.net Web site says just one person flying that much is equal to the entire carbon output of eight people for a whole year. And TV people rarely travel alone. They take crews and producers and everything but sherpas.

Apparently, the maxim “Do as I say, not as I do” is a guiding network principle.

NBC’s “Today” show was nearly as bad. First they gave us a week showing how environmentally conscious they were in a “going green” series, including carpooling and light bulb changing.

But when the Giants defeated the Patriots in the Super Bowl, co-anchor Meredith Vieira made good on a bet she lost with Matt Lauer. Meredith paid to have a plane fly over New York with the banner: “Giants Rule, Meredith Drools.”

Network reporting can be summed up in their own words, not mine. CBS News posted a help wanted ad on a popular journalism Web site back in November looking for a reporter to cover the “eco beat.”

“CBS is expanding its coverage of the environment,” the ad read. The ideal candidate: “You are wicked smart, funny, irreverent and hip, oozing enthusiasm and creative energy.” But here’s the kicker. “Knowledge of the enviro beat is a big plus, but not a requirement.”

Based on an upcoming report from the Business & Media Institute, CBS is right – knowledge of the environmental beat is not a requirement for network coverage. That report found CBS the worst on climate change, stifling debate on the topic in 97 percent of its stories.

It’s amazing the ridiculous lengths the news media will go to so they can bully you into believing something scientists still debate. The International Conference on Climate Change is intended to keep that debate alive.

Share:
Vote on It:
Average Vote:
 
About The Author
Dan Gainor is The Boone Pickens Free Market Fellow and director of the Media Research Center’s Business & Media Institute.
 
TOWNHALL DAILY: Sign up today and receive Townhall.com daily lineup delivered each morning to your inbox.
Climate cooling
By looking at the past cycles of the earth it appeared it was about time for Global cooling and there was some speculation about it. But the measures of C02 levels and the creeping up of world wide average temperatures soon overwhelmed any discussion of cooling.

Don't forget the predictions. The report, "Climate Change and Extreme Weather Events," said global temperatures would increase, sea levels would rise, and few places in the world would be spared an increase in violent rainstorms, droughts, tropical cyclones and other climatic disruptions. Climate change will first be expressed through more severe storms droughts and floods. So far this year, Atlanta almost ran out of water due to a severe drought. Australia just went through an eight year drought that just about wiped out their bread basket region. Their two biggest rivers, the Murray and Darling Rivers quit running into the sea. The Tornadoes that tore up Arkansas and Memphis were category 4, unusually severe. We have had a 40% increase in natural disasters such as those listed above. The religious folks are taking notice The Bible predicts an increase in natural disasters during the end times and look at the websites discussing it.

Global Warming
As a poster before me noted, some of us were around for the global cooling scare. Also, that we would run out of oil and food by the mid-nineties. It was pretty much we were going to freeze by 2010, but it really didn't matter because we were all going to starve a decade and a half earlier.

Analyzing these trends I have come to realize what the real problem is: climate moderation!

The climate at every point on Earth will be the same! (80 degree high 65 degree low)

As this new climate emerges people will be spending more and more time outdoors. As polar ice melts, more beaches are created, thus more time spent outside.

As we spend more time outside, more bar-b-ques occur, more food eaten.

All of this increased activity leads to more exposure to UV radiation, and obesity.

Therefore we will be to large to enter our domiciles and die of skin cancer.

WE ARE ALL GOING TO DIE!!!


Cam
Your comment regarding our fossil fuel use vs. China's is far too precious: "If we change, we'll have moral leverage to ask them to change." Yes, that's all that's lacking, our moral leverage. Once we have it, we'll wind China around our little finger.

These guys have it about right:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qJUFTm6cJXM&eurl=http://www. google.com/reader/view/

The Other Agenda
This conversation is going just fine. B Don't Tread on Me /B nails it. I need to add this:

What is it about the global warming agitators? They are all anti-capitalists. If there were some serious, free market types in their crowd they'd enhance their credibility. But this unspoken feature belies the real agenda: the shackling of the robust US of A and harvest of its wealth directed by the sensibilities of people who did not produce (i.e. earn) it.

Kyoto was a deserved failure (I read it; hope you did) and the coming cooling cycle will take the wind out of their sales. Then like CFCs and the Ozone before, there will be a new do-or-die crisis needing accommodation by the US (and superficially other soveriegns as they may choose.)

Cam..THIS is where our books part ...
Company...
Mine says...SURVIVAL and the well being of us and those like us...meaning AMERICANS!

The rest of the world is playing by those rules..
It is my gentle assertion that you are naive in this regard.

There is no military symbol for the Moral High ground that I know of... It may be :) but I may be mistaken.

I do know however, that Moral leverage is worthless in a negotiation when ... The OTHER side is looking out for them and those like them.
:)

Must go now because my wife just threaten to vote for ... unless I take her out to dinner NOW :)


More comments Don't tread o me
"the responses proposed are invariably to impoverish & control us, the ordinary people". You don't think the Middle east has us over a barrell as we continue to rely on their oil?
No the IPCC scientists are trying to prepare us for climate changes that are going to have much more impact on your pocket book than any of the proposals to fix the problem.
the US department of Energy just killed a 1 billion dollar project that would have brought to commercial use a system to capture C02 from Coal fired plants and stored the C02 in abandoned oil wells. That would have enabled us to keep coal fired plants burning and keep the electricity flowing. But an administration that would rather spend a trillion dollars on a false war in Iraq says we can't afford 1 billion for that investment.

"We can't go to energy that doesn't entail making CO2"
. OH yes we can. there are solar farms already working that uses the suns rays to heat oil that then makes steam to run the power generators and will also run during the night. One power plant already supplies 16,000 homes. We need to build many more of those. We have lots of space in the south west. Wind generator research is using the mills to pump and compress air in underground tanks that when released will continue to keep the generators running. But Yes it does take some investment to get these things up and running. But what is the cost of coal mining, what is the cost of importing oil from our friends Russia, Nigeria, and Saudi Arabia? I'll take our home grown wind power any day.

I gotta tell ya...
If all of the candidates from both parties agreed that something was a major threat, I would be quietly studying up on it to see what I was missing.

Tread and Ron
Tread - The webpage below addresses all of your questions:

http://environment.newscientist.com/channel/earth/dn11462

Does it matter that the methods of fighting GW are nearly identical to the methods for fighting Islamofascism?

Ron - My book says that increased fossil fuel usage by India and China is bad news. What moral system condones a behaviour because others are doing it? If we change, we'll have moral leverage to ask them to change.

The fact that our dependency on oil will cost trillions in military costs tells me that alternative energy already is more cost effective. There are indications that Peak Oil may have already passed. We need to change anyway. Cost effectiveness isn't much of an option any more.

Response to comments
"The IPCC scary reports turned out to be authored by the UN bureaucrats,"

The statement below is copied from "climate change watch".

“Final Draft” by the lead-author scientists had to be revised and approved line-by-line in negotiations with government representatives from around the world. During a lengthy and contentious session, with interventions by government representatives from the United States, China, Saudi Arabia, and other countries, numerous edits were made to the scientists’ draft prior to final joint approval by scientists and diplomats. Numerous changes appear clearly to have the effect of “toning down” the scientists’ own draft language on likely damaging impacts of climate change.

"The statement that hurricanes would become stronger & we can expect annual Katrinas & Andrews not only didn't turn out in '06 & '07"

2007 hurricanes in the Gulf. Climate change affects more than just the US. if either of those 2007 category 5 had hit the US coast you would have heard a LOT about them. The entry below is from the Hurricane central website.

The United States was largely spared from significant landfalling storms. However, several noteworthy events took place, including two back-to-back Category 5 hurricanes hitting Central America and the rapid near-shore intensification of the single U.S. landfalling hurricane.

there are many well vested special interest groups that work to down play the significance of Climate Change.


The IPCC Scam
I'm sure most of you have heard of the thousands of scientists who supposedly have jumped on the IPCC bandwagon. It's common knowledge, right? It seems that this sort of illusion is what fuels the claims of a so-called consensus among scientists. Do you know how many scientists actually signed the final draft?

Fifty-two!!

DTOM demands (3 of 3)...
>>>> (3) refraining from hyperbole & scaremongering in discussing (sic.)

In an ideal world the pundits would behave like Dr Spock and stick to logic and fact. But we get the politicians and media we deserve.

Personally, I think that humanity has much bigger fish to fry than to fix AGW. Humans and other animals are highly adaptable so most species should not have a problem. Problems such as reduced snow-pack (hence fresh water) here in California are solved simply by relocating populations to more favorable climes, or not growing such irrigation-intensive crops as are now grown.

My main interest in this discussion is to ensure that we don't devolve into opposing camps of "my scientists" vs. "your scientists". Truth is truth, it just needs to be discovered using an open mind. Politicians, greenies and energy companies should just back off and let science run its course.

DTOM demands...
>>>> (1) objective solid PROOF of the "theory," that accounts for observations, predicts or explains what nothing else can, & fits into accepted physics & chemistry & basic logic.

There will never be such solid proof you ask for. But that is not what is expected from science. Science always leaves room for doubt, which is why you effectively consign science to the dustbin if you demand such a high standard of "proof". I agree with you that, given the drastic consequences, AGW needs higher than normal standards of proof, but it is impossible to provide the certainty that you demand. That shadow of doubt should not, by its mere existence, imply that nothing should be done.

>>>> (2) policy proposals that have some relationship to the alleged problem, and can be shown by objective science to actually reduce the risk the theory indicates, while eschewing irrelevant & counterproductive policies

I agree with you here, and this is where I have a problem with the current US administration whose knuckle-headed idea of energy independence/CO2 reduction is to grow more corn for ethanol.


Cam...What does your book say ...
About the Increase demand and use of fossil fuels by the growing economies of Russia, China and India in relation to the impact of the USA cutting it's fossil fuel by 1/2?

When does your book anticipate that alternative energy sources will become less costly then fossil fuels?

Any entries of the impact to our economy in there?

My book does agree with yours in lamenting the loss of the dollars spent on the war.

The part about if it was worth it however, has not yet been written :)

Ticket to totalitarianism
Don't tell us how many scientists "believe" in global warming, tell us on what basis they do.

Okay, so Exxon funds research. Whoop-de-do. It still has to withstand scientific scrutiny.

The same should apply to the IPCC, but it is not held to that standard. Twice, its scary reports turned out to be authored by the UN bureaucrats, not the scientists. The UN is the biggest special interest of all in this, because it stands to parlay the AGW dogma into becoming the de facto government of the world, its goal.

National governments also have a big stake in pushing AGW.

Interestingly enough, the responses proposed are invariably to impoverish & control us, the ordinary people, more. We can't go to energy that doesn't entail making CO2; we have to do with less energy & more government involvement in our energy use. Meanwhile politicians shovel subsidies toward stupid non-solutions like ethanol, which is actually counterproductive, & hydrogen.

One day, Big Brother is going to control your thermostat, as they've already proposed in California.

This is not about actual anthrogenic climate change, if any. The Left & the elite push AGW as dogma because it has been packaged as the means to empower them while inducing us to accept totalitarian government & a truncated standard of living. That's the real agenda in all this.

Put up, or shut up
You would think that, given the RADICAL, fundamental alterations & abridgements of our lives & lifestyles potentially entailed by the AGW doctrine, the very minimum we'd have a right to demand would be:

(1) objective solid PROOF of the "theory," that accounts for observations, predicts or explains what nothing else can, & fits into accepted physics & chemistry & basic logic.
(2) policy proposals that have some relationship to the alleged problem, and can be shown by objective science to actually reduce the risk the theory indicates, while eschewing irrelevant & counterproductive policies
(3) refraining from hyperbole & scaremongering in discussing

Why can these exalted poobahs such as the IPCC not show us a shred of objective proof of what they assert? Every alleged demonstration has been shot full of holes.

The ice cores show that CO2 increased AFTER the temps rose.

The "hockey stick" analysis has been debunked several different ways.

Warmies are having to deny the Medieval Warming period because it gives the lie to alleged evidence of unprecedented modern warming.

The predicted coastal flooding turns out to be a few inches at most, not tens of feet.

The statement that hurricanes would become stronger & we can expect annual Katrinas & Andrews not only didn't turn out in '06 & '07, but is in fact contrary to the global warming theory.

The baseless assumption is made that natural climate for some reason became totally static in modern times & any change is anthrogenic & bad.

The alleged actual measurements showing warming have been debunked & discredited.

"Computer models" about as meaningful to reality as Second Life or World of Warcraft.

And so on.

If AGW were true, all the KYoto'ing & carbon credits trading & hydrogen/ethanol we could do would be futile. We'd be doomed.

Ron
My use of the term "pretty close" was gracious. In my book, a consensus within the NAS is proof.

If the US could cut it's fossil fuel dependency by 1/2, we would meet the Kyoto protocols and the madrassas in Saudi Arabia would dry up and blow away.

The use of alternative energy sources will decrease our costs. The paper today included a story on Nobel Prize-winning Joseph Stiglitz estimate that the Iraq war will cost us $5 trillion. Direct costs total $607 billion so far. Dear Lord, what we could have done with that money to reduce our dependency on fossil fuels.

Cam ...what does pretty close...
To proving it mean? It is either proved or not.

also, it sounds to me like you are still 100% dependent on fossil fuels for 1/3 of your energy needs.

An Energy bill that increases the supply of energy and reduces it's cost is what this country needs. Otherwise...

We remain Energy-wise...Hogtyed :)


Why is it that
James Hansen can accept $720K from George Soros to promote his agenda ( http://tinyurl.com/38escw ) , but people like chicaree object to organizations like the Heritage Foundation accepting a limited amount of money from an organization that likes the message that they promote?

I guess it all comes down to politics.

I guess some people see Al Gore and George Soros as the dynamic duo even though they have never done anything noteworthy except invent the internet and bring down the Bank of England.

On the otherhand, "Big Oil" has only powered the planet for 100 years and facilitated the greatest technological advances in history.


C.H.
"My issue is not whether or not GW exists. I object to libs blaming it on human activity when they can't prove it. Then libs legislate their fears into policy and hogtie energy, so we're left with stagnation and no solution."

We're very short on accuracy here. When there's a consensus within the National Academy of Science, that's pretty close to proving it. A lot of voices here remind me of the Holocaust deniers. The "libs" have an energy bill in congress now. That's not "hogtying" and your definition of "energy" appears to be limited to fossil fuels. The solutions are there. Solar panels on my roof provide 2/3 of my electricity and water heating needs. No rocket science. Are you volunteering your area for the nuclear waste dump? If not, we're still stuck.

Not just one winter
This winter is like the winters Canada has had for the past fifty to 100 years (and I have been around for more of those than I care to admit.)

Two mild winters do not make Armageddon either, for that matter.

Most of us are very happy to have a cold, snowy winter back again because that means (1) the water will not be musky and nasty next summer and (2) all the bugs and mold will die. Mild winters mean mold, spores, fungus and bugs. Ask anybody who lives in Atlanta.

Redhead
What do I know? I didn't even spell "entrance" right.

But you've convinced me about pun offsets for punny people. Maybe a foundation could be set up for the pundamentally-challenged.

science is a process
Science is a process by which the effects of different variables can be isolated.

When there are too many variables and the variables cannot be accounted for the science becomes a lot less exact and is actually just speculations and guesses.

None of these GW scientists actually talk like scientists. Scientists are skeptical and want confirming results from other scientists. They speak of weaknesses in their theory or experiment and want insight as to whether their assumptions and conclusions are valid.

This new type of AGW scientists speak like lawyers and politicians. The ruling class has bought lawyers, put them in labcoats and called them scientists.

It's amazing that they actually expect us to believe them.

Right Makes Might
"Algore has always reminded me of the stern of the equine anatomy."

Here's a riddle: What do you get when you cross Algore with a horse?

A mule!

chicaree
If the government pays a scientist, is it ethical for that scientist to take money from private interest groups?

Best laugh I've had all day
Uma Thurman finds Algore – gaaaaaaaach – sexy? Like a beautiful racehorse?

Although, there may be something to what she says. Algore has always reminded me of the stern of the equine anatomy.

chicaree writes:
"Some of those researchers are also funded by Exxon funded institutes if my memory serves me right."

So if a scientist was to take, say, $750,000 from an individual/organization for stating what they believe is proven in scientific research they have conducted and/or reviewed, should we discount their statement?

Marion
"He [Gore] single handedly turn the global warming to global freezing in one year!"

Hey, a man who can invent the Internet can do anything.

Politics and global warming
I think there is some misunderstanding by some folks, who seem to think that those of us who are skeptical of human caused global warming are somehow swayed by the politicians while Al Gore and the whole lot are following science. Al Gore is a POLITICIAN. And, threat of world-wide climate change is the perfect political hook! What will people give up if they think they must give it up in order to save the planet their children must live on? Almost anything, including freedom. As politics is mostly about control and jobs creation for one's friends, convincing people that the whole world is about to melt like an ice cream cone on a hot summer's day is a very good way to convince people to hand over their Constitutional rights, their means of transportation, their homes, their reproductive abilities ...

If there is no worldwide catastrophy heading our way, it's much harder to motivate people to go against their basic instincts of self-preservation and give their money and freedoms to the politicians. Global warming, while it seems to have been a 30-year trend that may well have begun to reverse itself (see recent issue of National Geographic), is also a perfect political goad.

calm
I'm just trying to be punny! Who says liberals don't have a sense of humor?

Entering pun contests should be a right! There should be no fee, unless said entrant makes over $150,000 in a year. Then the fee will be based on the total number of entrants divided by the rich entrants yearly income.

Or -
Don't worry, I bought bad pun offsets. I'm pun neutral!

Redhead
"Al-bore-tross "

If anybody approaches you about entering a pun contest, just ignore them - especially if there is an entrace fee.

packrat
"Check the weather in China these days, not exactly a heat wave."

there it is! Proof that we liberals are just conning you.

Cam
My issue is not whether or not GW exists. I object to libs blaming it on human activity when they can't prove it. Then libs legislate their fears into policy and hogtie energy, so we're left with stagnation and no solution.

Meanwhile, China and Russia and many other countries are gulping fossil fuels and burping massive amounts of pollution into the environment without a thought.

We should find cleaner energy, as France has done by going almost totally nuclear. Liberals can be credited with a lot of good environmentalism and conservation, I sincerely thank them, but we have to keep using fossil fuels and nuclear energy until we find different sources of energy or we figure out how to use them more safely.

GE and MSM Coverage
Following the money some more...

GE owns NBC, and GE has a lot to gain ($$$) with their mercury-laden light bulbs, so is it any wonder all NBC channels are pushing the cult the global warming so hard?

So don't expect any of their coverage of this conference. Though it would be interesting if at C-SPAN covered a speech or two.

Also, I'm still trying to find someone who'll buy me a Honda hydrogen fuel cell car as a carbon offset so they'll sleep better at night. Al G, ... you there?

Following the money will show
that about 90% of the global climate research funding comes from governments and NGO's that really, really want to be told that there is a problem and it's mankinds fault. They need to have a problem that they can attack, preferably by forcing ordinary people to change their lifestyles, or else there is no need for their organization. Many researchers have noted that it can be terminal to one's career to be involved in research concluding that, hey wait, there's no problem, and even if there was it's not man's fault anyway. Wrong answer.

Redhead,
>>>>>> “What I *do* object to is politicians requiring an unreasonable level of certainty from the scientific community”

>>> But there is no certainty either way, and it is increasingly looking like the certainty is on our (the skeptics) side! Read, man! Don’t let your own handle define you!

Well you can say that as much as you like, but folks like me who are trying to be objective about AGW -- and, yes, reading about it -- still see the preponderance of scientific opinion in support of it. Contrarians have been whittling away at the theory for as long as I can remember, and they almost convinced me at one point. However, since then the evidence for AGW seems to be getting stronger.

>>>>>> “Doing this gives politicians too much of an excuse to do nothing, which is their favorite (lack of) activity.”

>>> Actually, I wish this were true. Politicians try to do waaaayy too much. They should do nothing. They should sit at home, perhaps actually eat with and talk with their constituents. Politicians don’t solve problems, they create them!

Maybe I should have made it clearer that they tend to do the bare minimum for their real constituents (you and me) because they're so busy pandering to all those special interests.

Cynicism aside (and I agree that there is way too much nanny government) there are important decisions which can only be made by elected officials, such as the proper use of land. Too often, the wrong decisions are made because short-term gain for some special interest outweighs long-term problems for the constituents.

Follow the money, indeed!
Chicaree

How much money has Al-bore-tross made from global warming? How much money has your ogre, Exxon-Mobile put into Global Warming studies, vs. how much money is put into it by proponents?
How much money is being collected in new taxes for the supposed purposes of fighting Global Warming?

They Discovered the Villain
Now we know the truth! It's the big, bad oil company's behind any scientist who doubts that we have a climate crisis from Manmade Global Warming. Well, I would be very concerned if our major energy company's were not involved in the science involved with Global Warming. I guess we can trust a scientist supported by Greenpeace, the Environmental Defense Fund or Al Gore's carbon credit company, but not from an energy company. I have it, let's shut down Exxon and those other dreadful energy companies. Yep, that's the ticket, while we are at it let's close all of those dangerous nuclear power plants and outlaw the use of dirty ol'coal for generating electricity. We can then fall back on water, solar and wind power. But, wait, what about the migrating salmon and those poor birds. Guess we only have solar power. Let's hope the sun increases it's heat content to drive all of those solar fields. What, you really mean if the Sun's solar quotient increases we may see Global Warming. I guess there is no soulution; the only solution is the demise of mankind - as already suggested from some envirokook author!

And where is Algore
getting the money for his crusade?

If man can change the climate, please tell me why there aren't more rain dances performed during the dog days of August when we're all perishing of heat and could use a cool rain? Why not feathers and a rattle as well, if Priuses and light bulbs are supposed to "make a difference"?

If man can change the climate, how is it that seeding for rain doesn't work? Or dumping boatloads of nutrient iron into the oceans in order to increase the bloom of algea (which just as quickly dies) that will consume CO2?

What is the ideal temperature supposed to be for any part of Earth's surface-and who gets to decide?

What happened in the course of thirty years that changed the "consensus" from an approaching Ice Age to climactic Armageddon?

Wouldn't a warmer climate mean a longer growing season for some places, which would increase food production? What is the downside of that?

I'm just askin'...

thickasabrick
“What I *do* object to is politicians requiring an unreasonable level of certainty from the scientific community”

But there is no certainty either way, and it is increasingly looking like the certainty is on our (the skeptics) side! Read, man! Don’t let your own handle define you!

“Doing this gives politicians too much of an excuse to do nothing, which is their favorite (lack of) activity.”

Actually, I wish this were true. Politicians try to do waaaayy too much. They should do nothing. They should sit at home, perhaps actually eat with and talk with their constituents. Politicians don’t solve problems, they create them!

chicaree
Check the weather in China these days, not exactly a heat wave.

Most people recognize that climate is cyclical, maybe not during your lifetime, but a cycle nevertheles.

Follow the money
I looked up the conference in New York city. It is being convened by James Taylor, no not the singer but a member of the Cato Institute which is funded by Exxon. Look up the Cato Institute and this information is available.

The Cato Institute holds regular briefings on global warming with known climate 'skeptics' as panelists. In December 2003, panelists included Patrick Michaels, Robert Balling and John Christy, all of whom believe that the current scientific understanding of climate change is inconclusive. Cato held similar briefings on climate change in Washington in July 2003 and 2002. (C. Coon, & Erin. Hymel (2003) Sound Policy for the Energy Bill, Heritage Foundation Reports, 23 September)

Some of those researchers are also funded by Exxon funded institutes if my memory serves me right.

M Sederoff,
You write:

>>> You can read can't you? This is the problem with a lot of people. They don't want to put the effort into discovering the facts, so they just believe whatever the majority says.

Well, I love to discover facts for myself. However, life is not long enough to be an expert on everything. In particular, to become a climate expert I would have to devote months of time delving into what has become a highly obfuscated issue. It's not just a matter of reading back issues of Nature!

This is the reason we rely on experts. It's called division of labor. It's why mankind has achieved civilization, because we don't all have to build our own houses, mine and refine iron ore and so on.

>>> Here's a flash for you...the majority once thought the earth was flat. Doctor's use to think that bleeding people made them well.

The examples you cite come from the dawn of the scientific method, and with the benefit of hindsight. Unfortunately, we do not have that benefit, so the best we can do is listen to the current crop of experts and let them battle it out without political pressure to find favorable "facts".

>>> Here's a suggestion; read some of the many excellent scientists who disagree with Darwin.

Your "many" scientists is my "few", since far greater numbers believe Darwinism to be the best explanation of the facts. The fact that Darwinism has sustained decades of attack says something for its veracity.

No matter how excellent some people consider the anti-Darwinists, until they convince the majority I would feel comfortable believing in Darwinism for that reason alone.

one cold winter
One cold winter does not make a climate trend. If you believe that then you are ready to believe any naysayer about climate change. And yes we do have lots of data to show that climate change is human caused. 650,000 years of data is a pretty good start from the Ice core data. Plus climate change research has been carried as early as the 70's. As climate change plays out you will find that it is more alarming than you ever thought. This is a large planet and it takes a while to heat up as the C02, Methane and CFC's traps the heat. Speaking of methane, it is being released in huge amounts as the permafrost melts. The permafrost zone is a huge area in the Arctic,including Russia, Alaska, Northern Scandinavia. The melt releases methane into the atmosphere. Methane is 20 times more effective at trapping heat than C02. the methane problem is not even included in the data the IPCC uses to predict climate change because scientists have not figured yet how to measure the amounts being released.
What to expect from impacts of climate change, one of many is fresh water supplies. Melting glaciers on our mountain ranges supplies water to the Southwest, the California breadbasket waters its fruits and vegetables from run off from the mountains as well as the Northwest production of its fruit. There IS NO doubt that those glaciers are melting rapidly.

While the US has a cold winter, if you care to look at Europe they have had a record breaking balmy winter. This is Global we're talking about.

Take care with embracing skeptics. There are two sides to every argument and one side has to be wrong.



Packrat
The terrible droughts in Texas that you recall from the 50s were duplicated in the late 90s and into the early 2000s. My son has a ranch in the Panhandle north of Amarillo. He has had to sell much of his herd of cattle, as well as his horses, and take a job at a feed mill in order to survive.

Two springs ago I was there for our granddaughter's high school graduation and saw first hand the terrible range fires.

This is the first year they have had enough moisture.

also
We're only pretending to turn your children into marxist commie baby-killers to distract you from the real goal of our evil genius.


don't say you haven't been warned.

Redhead,
I read your blog entry. Don't get me wrong! Like you I actually see no real problem with climate warming in itself and (as so many here point out) the Earth was much warmer in the recent past.

What I *do* object to is politicians requiring an unreasonable level of certainty from the scientific community -- not just about AGW but all sorts of other things too. This is cherry-picking the facts to suit the prejudice.

If acting on the scientific consensus is too hard, for political or economic reasons, they should say so, not try to cower behind a minority of scientists who happen to support their position. Doing this gives politicians too much of an excuse to do nothing, which is their favorite (lack of) activity.

Anne,
"Conservatives" and honest scientists have been saying all along.... gloBULL warming is a HOAX!"

How did you ever find us out? Of course, liberals really know there's no such thing as global change...all of those photos of shrinking ice caps and diappearing rivers are constructed on a Culver City back lot, (the same one whre the moon landing and the JFK assassination was staged.) The truth is, we have actually set up a conspiracy to terrify children (cons fall into that group) so that we can get rich and rule the world with our evil genius. Then we're going to put a big giant head on top of the Empire state building and transmit rays of evil to every corner of the universe.

You have already been programmed by a secret chemical that we have put into your drinking water, that will tranquilize you and make you believe you have nothing to be concerned about. Your President has been drinking this water for quite some time; you can see that he has been delusional for eight years now.

You must not resist; the New York \times is aiding our mission by printing fliers in a secret castle which lies atop a forested mountain in Northern California. Don't try to storm it; it's surrounded by wolves and fog.

Do not hide; you cannot get away from us. We will rule the world!!!!

Beware.


GradGirl,
you are right that "truth to power" is just a slogan. I did not mean to imply that power is not useful (or has no relevance) to science, simply that power should not abuse science in the way that is often demonstrated by politicians. In particular, politicians will often claim that there is sufficient "dissent" or "lack of consensus" such that their position, while held by a small minority, is still worthy of consideration. This is abuse, since there is never a *complete* consensus amongst scientists. It is making the standard of proof so high that there is always an excuse to do nothing.

You are entitled to your opinion about the relative amount of support, however I see it as currently in favor of the AGW theory. If this conference (which admittedly has some stellar attractions with good eco creds, such as David Bellamy) makes a difference, then good for it.

simplistic reasoning
So it's snowed a lot this year. Does a drop in the DJIA mean you should sell all your stock?

If the science is so grey, why is the scientist Ronald Reagan chose to study GW fully on board with the need to reduce GHGs? Why are the Bush Administration EPA scientists fully on board with reducing GHGs?

Yes, the earth has warmed and cooled over the earth's history. Coastal areas were flooded. That's a problem now.

Yeticon and a mental footprint
Profbog - I love it, mental footprint. Your yeti comment reminded me of a funny site called yeticon.com. The very first entry is about how Toucan Sam saved fruit loops from the radical gays, pretty funny. Their are several funny ones on it from different authors. Check it out if any of you are bored.

On another note, I noticed a long time ago they were starting to adjust the language to global climate change. As Savage would say - How Convveeeeeeennnniiiieeeennnnnttttt.

Evidence
is irrelevant. Everyone knows that the excessive snows this winter point to global warming. Everyone knows that hot weather points to global warming. Everyone knows that the media points to global warming. Excessive gas passed by sheep in New Zealand is adding to global warming. So, while we all work to reduce our "carbon footprint," (media is exempted) our mental footprint has become an endangered species. Now, if we can just get another earmark, we'll find a yeti so as to validate its inclusion in the list of endangered species.

Kudos to Al Gore
He single handedly turn the global warming to global freezing in one year! How ese do we explain a winter that has erased all of the signs of global warming?

Polypogenic climate cycles currently...
...in a warming phase.

Why not be accurate? I welcome anyone's ability to turn this phrase into a shorter sound bite.

Best regards,
Tim Cranston

There is your answer!!!!
M Sederoff writes: Friday, February, 29, 2008 8:41 AM
thickasabrick

"Sometimes a person has to think for themselves. There is enough information available on just about any topic that you can weigh both sides and then use your common sense. "

To - M Sederoff Isn't what you are describing the total antithesis of liberalism? You have a lot of nerve bringing common sense into it.

Fads come, fads go


Like a few other posters, I am old enough to remember the forecast of a new Ice Age back in the 70's (who knows , maybe this is it?).

I also remember terrible droughts in North Texas in the 50's. ( and recent floods)

Climate is cyclical. Relax and observe it.

Exactly what thinking people....

"Conservatives" and honest scientists have been saying all along.... gloBULL warming is a HOAX!

It was just a matter of time before this hoax was exposed, and algore would be shown for what he is....

Wonder if they'll take back gore's "Prize?"



thickasabrick
"Not being an astronomer, I go along with the heliocentric theory; not knowing much biology, I go along with Darwinism; etc."

You can read can't you? This is the problem with a lot of people. They don't want to put the effort into discovering the facts, so they just believe whatever the majority says. Here's a flash for you...the majority once thought the earth was flat. Doctor's use to think that bleeding people made them well.

Sometimes a person has to think for themselves. There is enough information available on just about any topic that you can weigh both sides and then use your common sense. One way to use your common sense is to look at who is making out financially from the various opinions. The group making the most money is usually the one lying.

Here's a suggestion; read some of the many excellent scientists who disagree with Darwin.

GOREBULL WARRING IS A HOAX
The reason that so much of this planet has had drought for so many centuries is that we’ve been in an ice age, and the water needed for normal condensation has been frozen into glaciers. Glaciers are frozen water needed as condensation for barren and frozen lands of this planet, causing drought and flooding. When glaciers melt, some water runs into the oceans. Some water thaws the ground below where the glacier was, and soaks into the ground. Some water evaporates into the upper atmosphere where it becomes normal rainfall for the whole world.

The heat of the sun, and the absence of cold from glaciers and sea ice will cause more water to be evaporated from the oceans, lakes, and rivers into the upper atmosphere than there presently is; and the winds will blow it evenly around the world, providing normal rainfall world-wide, even where there presently is drought, and barren and frozen land, preventing flooding.

The worldwide rainfall will cause long-dormant seeds in barren lands to sprout and grow into new plants; the best way to go green. The new plants will inhale carbon dioxide and exhale oxygen, which we breathe. There will be so many new plants, that we might have to increase the amount of carbon dioxide we generate, to provide enough for all of them

A glacier in Greenland is melting, returning the land to the way it was a millennium ago. Larger crop yields are already the result, and the codfish have returned. Put the UN there.

Snow fell before leaves, and a month before winter started. Parts of the country have record low temperatures. We’re entering another ice age. We need global warming as soon as possible.

I Hope
the dumb masses who bought into this hoax haven't thrown away their winter coats. The sun is going into an inactive phase (probably reaching it's nadir is thirty years). This is why we've seen 100 years of warming (heh, heh, barely one degree C.) erased in a single year. I can't wait to hear what the eco-fascists come up with to justify their attempt at one world socialism next.

global madness
1000 years ago The Vikings were farming in Greenland, hence the name. Grapes grew in Scotland. The globe has heated and cooled every 1500 years like clockwork for millions of years. Thank God Algore and his buds will be shown for who they are. No matter, Algore got rich on the liberal fools and the stupid, vapid and moronic Hollyweird glitteratti. I can't stop laughing. The globe is getting warmer and there is not a damn thing we can do about it. Besides, who is to say warming will be bad? READ: Unstoppable Global Warming by S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery. If you seek truth, this will open your eyes.

Bring it on!
While I do my share of recycling, I am all in favor of global warming. Thickasabrick, you say you go along with Darwinism. Then you cannot go along with what they are saying about global warming as well! Stop by my blog (click on my name) to find out why.

Again, TH writers, thanks for an opportunity to plug my latest blog postings!

thickasabrick
I'm glad you seem to have an "open mind", but I must disagree with a couple of points in your post, in particular:
"The role of science is to speak truth to power."

While being a catchy slogan, this mostly empty rhetoric does assume that "power" (business? government?) is out to thwart or retard science. This is just silly. What major scientific development hasn't resulted from the support of "power" (it takes money to run a lab, after all), especially in the last several decades? Also, the idea that the conference might cause a paradigm shift also presupposes that there is, in fact, scientific consensus (regarding both the actuality of Global Warming ). Even moderately thorough research will show that, among other things, the UN conference that constituted the supposed consensus opinion was largely composed of non-scientific members.

Beyond that, I am skeptical regarding this issue because: I'm not convinced that we have enough data from a long enough period of time to actually prove that there is a decided warming trend, and our discussion seems to be rather biased toward the northern half of the Western hemisphere; as a former Geology major, it is clear to me that even the most rudimentary study of the subject reveals a serious flaw in the argument: climate change seems to happen periodically but regularly, and is thus unstoppable; for this and other reasons, I'm skeptical about man's role in any climate change; and finally, is the apparent change in climate (relatively small) not acceptable given the massive increases in quality of life world-wide?

What I really love about this article is that it again points out the ridiculous hypocrisies of the media and the celebrity left.

no one cash in yet?
junkscience.com

if you know there is global warming from man, then go cash in! if it was true, someone would be able to right? $150,000 just to prove we caused global warming and not one person in the world has done so...interesting

Long Ago in Maine...warmer gantler
I am currently teaching Maine studies to the Juniors and Seniors here at Oxford Hills Christian Academy. I Just came across an interesting tidbit this week.

It seems the "Red Paint People" some 6000 years ago in Maine, collected the swords from their swordfish catch. A large amount of these have been uncovered in recent years. The odd thing about this is that there are no swordfish in the gulf of Maine because the water is too cold. The text actually (admitted) stated that the gulf of Maine waters were significantly warmer then than now. (Dougout canoes were the fishing fleet.)

It was -13F at my home in South Paris today.

Of course, places which are now icy were lush about 1000 years ago as the Norsemen had colonies way north and their writing describe what they grew. By 1300 AD, however, global cooling had driven them out of Greenland, northern Canadian islands, etc.

The long, and little understood, solar activity cycles have the last word on this matter. People merely adapt as best we can.

Regularly Scheduled Winter
As February winds to a close, we in the Greater Toronto Area have had more snow this month than ever in recorded history -- and more is coming this way by noon! We have officially had twice the snow that we had in the last two years combined. It is -12 this morning. This is what we would call a regularly scheduled Canadian Winter. True, it was accompanied by people who had somehow gotten the idea that we live in Hawaii, or that Global Warming was actually true, and completely forgot about boots, thick coats, antifreeze, skis and outdoor hockey.

Like all other fads, this one has run its course. Thank heavens I am old enough to ignore all these alarums and excursions and just go on living my regular life until they slink away.

The truth will out
I for one look forward to seeing the outcome of this conference. After downloading and looking at the credentials of the speakers and sponsors, it is clear that they are uniformly predisposed to dismiss AGW as a problem, however if their science is good then that is all that counts, and the truth will out.

If this conference causes a paradigm shift amongst scientists, then I am willing to go along with the consensus as to the *fact* (or otherwise) of AGW, as (I think) all non-experts should. Not being an astronomer, I go along with the heliocentric theory; not knowing much biology, I go along with Darwinism; etc.

Politics is an entirely different matter. I can live with any reasonable decision, provided they don't try to convince me that "science is on their side". The role of science is to speak truth to power. What power does with that truth is the peoples' real concern.

Sign Up to Post Your CommentsSign Up to Post Your Comments
If you are already registered, click here to login. Otherwise, please take a few seconds to register with Townhall.com. Once you sign up, you’ll be able to post your comments immediately, use the action center, get podcasts, and more!
Note: Fields marked with a red asterisk (*) are required.
Salutation:
First Name:
*
Last Name:
*
Email:
*
Nickname:
*
Note: Nick name will be shown when you post comments.
Address 1:
*
Address 2:
City:
*
State:
*
Zip:
*
Phone:
      
Your daily must-read of conservative columns, cartoons and news. Coulter, Sowell, Krauthammer and more.
(Bi-Weekly) We highlight the best opportunities from our partners for surveys, action items and more.